C&C Generals Demo Out

[Falleron]

Command and Conquere Generals DEMO is out. What does everyone think? Its still downloading here! Its 362Mb

[cubist]

What's the URL? link please! :D

[Falleron]

What's the URL? link please! :D
Doh!! Feel silly now! Its:

http://www.macgamefiles.com/download.php?item=18116

[Schmittroth]

I'm downloading the demo too, but I read the missions are only single player. Kinda missing the boat I think, but we'll see. WCIII's demo was multiplayer only if I recall right.

[crazzyeddie]

I'm downloading the demo too, but I read the missions are only single player. Kinda missing the boat I think, but we'll see. WCIII's demo was multiplayer only if I recall right.

I've never heard of a Multi-player only demo (unless you count Quake3 Arena, which is all multiplayer). WCIII was a single player demo with a few missions.

[AppleMatt]

As I posted in the MacBytes thread, I'm downloading now. But it's going sooooo slooooooow!
Someone needs more mirrors methinks.

AppleMatt

[alxths]

A bittorrent seed would be ideal, actually... althought i'm in no particular hurry to start wasting time on this while i should be studying.

[Falleron]

I am getting 17k/s (158Mb so far)

[mikeyredk]

A bittorrent seed would be ideal, actually... althought i'm in no particular hurry to start wasting time on this while i should be studying.

actually all of the torrents sites which i will not say are running very slowly or i am not able to access

[evil]

macgamefiles is soooooo slow. i dont really want to wait 13 hours for a download to finish. when my modem is capable of doing it in a few minutes

[Schmittroth]

macgamefiles is soooooo slow. i dont really want to wait 13 hours for a download to finish. when my modem is capable of doing it in a few minutes

I have a paid subscription to InsideMacGames.com. Their subscriber mirror downloaded the file in about half an hour.

[Oirectine]

macgamefiles is soooooo slow. i dont really want to wait 13 hours for a download to finish. when my modem is capable of doing it in a few minutes


Odd, I'm getting about 500 kb/sec

[alxths]

Well.. it's unplayable at the lowest settings on my 1Ghz, fx5200, 768 mb, PB

[evil]

whoa i hope i can play it on my 1hgz emac...once its finished downloading

[Wes]

Not very good graphics, some pretty bad frames (Dual 1 Ghz, 1.25 Gigs of Ram, 9000 Pro), and it crashes a lot. It's not just me, I've talked to another person who crashes repeatedly aswell.

[neonart]

Aaah crap. Not good feedback.

I was hoping it was good.

I'll see how it does on my system...

[Schmittroth]

Yeah I've tried playing the game 3 times now, all resulting in crashes. I have a 1Ghz 15" TiBook (Radeon Mobility 9000 64MBVRAM and 768SDRAM and Panther 10.3.3. All tries results in crashes during gameplay after the unstoppable in game script during the tutorial (the one of the helos flying low attacking the starting Landing Zone).

Why should I be playing this as opposed to Warcraft 3? Which has never crashed?

No readme file has anyone figured out how to cut straight to gameplay?

[aldo]

Oh man. Not again.

Another crappy port of a good (nearly great) PC game.

Why the ******* can't anyone produce a good version of a PC game?!

I can play Generals on an Athlon 800mhz w/ Geforce 2 MX on medium detail at 800x600 (or low on 1024x768)... why on earth can't it be done on a higher spec mac?

[evil]

it didnt crash on me. but i just was not impressed with the game at all. i dont know if i will ever play it again.

[varmit]

after the splash screen I get the black screen of death with the blue letters saying INPUT OUT OF RANGE. My monitor could handle it when it was hooked up to a PC, the graphics couldn't have jumped that much. I even tryed lower resolutions and everything. Nothing. IBM T56A monitor.

[applekid]

Head to the IMG Forums. I started a thread about the demo, and we've been getting good responses so far. There seems to be a problem with the ATI graphics card. That's just my assumption, but people with ATI cards are the only one's with major problems.

My specs: 17-inch iMac, 800 MHz G4, GeForce4MX, 768 MB of RAM.

To summarize my IMG post: It runs smoothly even on high texture settings. The movies are choppy because they are high-quality QT movies. No problems except for the GLA mission which basically comes to a crawl and made me stop at the cutscene. I'm surprised how well it works considering my machine being under system requirements. Hopefully it stands true for the full version.

[Grokgod]

I deleted the crap from my HD!

[Oirectine]

This game was unimpressive. It runs slowly (on my 1 GHz 15" TiBook), it crashed on me about 5 minutes into the game, and the graphics are pretty bad, in my opinion. I wouldn't mind if it didn't feel so choppy.

[neonart]

Well, so far it has not blown me away- but it does run pretty good on my machine. (see my sig)

I set it to 1600x1200 and detail high, then I took off cloud shadows. The graphics are ok I guess and there is funny looking blocky things in the sand... weird.
I'll have to play it more.

[hvfsl]

It runs like crap on a 1Ghz PC, so I expect it wont run well on anything less that a G5.

[markjones05]

I played it last night and had a good experience! It ran choppy on high detail so i put it on normal and it ran absolutely fine. Fun game.

My specs are in my signature.

[yellow]

C&C:G is a very fun game!! Especially multi-player.

The game ran so-so on my 867MHz Qwoosh. I was due for an upgrade anyway and the DP 1.33GHz made the game run MUCH better. But it was acceptable with the original processor.

[Schmittroth]

There is an acknowledged problem with ATI Radeon 9000 cards (which my TiBook has). This could explain a lot. Good they found it now before the complete games goes gold.

[Rezet]

Oh man. Not again.

Another crappy port of a good (nearly great) PC game.

Why the ******* can't anyone produce a good version of a PC game?!

I can play Generals on an Athlon 800mhz w/ Geforce 2 MX on medium detail at 800x600 (or low on 1024x768)... why on earth can't it be done on a higher spec mac?

Knock it off. My friend has a 1.2 Ghz pc with 9600 pro card and game runs decently most of the time, but quite laggy at times (on medium details). His brother has athlon 850 with nvidia 5200 and game is unplayable on his computer.

And stop trashing the game just cuz your comps can't handle it.
I just DL and played demo and It didn't crash on me. And with everything on highest it performed very, very well. The only lag that was noticeable when I was trying to scroll with like 100 units on the screen. But I see no reason why this would be a big problem.

Don't forget it's just a DEMO. Unreal T2004 demo lagged much more than retail also. And textures weren't even compareble.

Before trashing the game, I suggest you wait till when the game comes out, and then read reviews carefully.
I for one am buying this game.

[Powerbook G5]

It runs pretty decently on my 1.25 GHz PowerBook with 512 megs RAM, Radeon 9600, 5400 RPM HD. Set to 1024x768 at high with all settings on it gets a bit choppy in the movies but plays fine and set to 800x600 it runs smooth as silk but either way, the graphics aren't that impressive considering it's a fairly modern game. Seems like it's just a lot of bloat to make it run this poorly on so many decent systems when looking at the sub-par graphics. As far as the crashing/freezing issues, I have not had a single problem with the demo crashing with me and I've played it quite a bit earlier this afternoon.

edit: While not capturing the same magic as Red Alert/Counterstrike/Total Annihilation which I was absolutely addicted to back in my PC era, it's a pretty fun game and I for one can't wait to get the full version when it comes out. It's got a bit of style and I love this genre of real time strategy game. Damn, I almost miss my Pentium II Gateway now, I had a blast playing multiplayer with my high school buddies with that game.

[AppleMatt]

I agree with Powerbook G5, I'm not impressed by the graphics even when they're on max. Admittedly for a PC game it's getting a little long in the tooth, but still. I think UT2004 graphics are much much better (even the demo version) and the whole sense of gameplay is more rounded.

I think that FSAA would really help in this game, hopefully someone will post screenshots with it on somewhere.

I loved Red Alert & RA2 on the PC, it's hard to tell whether it'll be the same wiht Generals because the demo is so short. You don't build anything up, you just blow things up, and it seems heavily weighed in favour of the player.

AppleMatt

[neonart]

I think that FSAA would really help in this game, hopefully someone will post screenshots with it on somewhere.AppleMatt

Is there a specific way to take screenshots in this demo? I can try the ATi displays FSAA override, but don't know how to show you guys the results...

BTW i turned off the "water edge thing" preference and it made a huge positive difference! Maybe it's something to do with ATi cards, but it looks amazing now. I guess it was attempting to do some kind of nice blend effect- but was just making things look blocky.
If your machine does OK on high settings, but lags a little, try going to custom config and turn off cloud shadows and water edge(whatever it is).

Running great so far.

[Powerbook G5]

The graphics do look a whole lot better now with the water smoothing turned off. The weird thing is that it also improves the overall look of sand and other textures besides just the water. The game doesn't look so blocky/triangly now and runs even smoother on the highest detail/resolution settings on my PowerBook.

[Rezet]

Thing is when MAA is off, screenshots end up messed up.
But I cut some models out. Here you go. Highest resolution possible in a demo + everything on highest.
This is no AA:

[Rezet]

Everything on highest but 4x MAA is on.
(Note, it made it looks slightly better if look closely, but it also killed probably about 30% of fps. So FAA/MAA is not really worth it in a demo atleast. Here 4x Multi AA:

[Grokgod]

Where is the Port of the most addictive game in the world.

DUNE! It was the best game that I have ever played in my Pc days.

Its the only thing that i miss about my Pcheese!

[Golem]

Ran fine on my Dual 1.8. But I didnt have the option to set graphics higher than 1024x768?

[AppleMatt]

From those shots it looks asif AA really makes a difference, but I agree, not enough to justify a 30%fps loss.

I've played it a few times over now. It's fun, but it's not as good as the other C&C's. This maybe because it's such a limited demo and I'm playing it on hard-ware that just meets the specs. I didn't like UT2004 until I found out about the sound bug, now I love it.

I'd be such a good reviewer :D

AppleMatt

[neonart]

It appears that FSAA is not really working on my machine. I really can't tell a difference between setting it on or off.
I'm simply turning it on in the ATi displays overdrives... is there something I'm missing?

BTW Rezet, how did you take the pics?

[titaniumducky]

It runs like crap on a 1Ghz PC, so I expect it wont run well on anything less that a G5.

I have a 1 GHz 15" TiBook (64MB VRAM, 512MB RAM), and it runs very smoothly on lowest settings. I didn't bother to try bumping them up yet. However, both times I played, it crashed on me just as I start to get into the game.

Has anyone resolved these crashes? Is there an update? I tried running from both the disk image and the HD.

[neonart]

...Has anyone resolved these crashes? Is there an update? I tried running from both the disk image and the HD.

Are you running the game from the disk image on the desktop, or did you copy it to your HD? <<<<DUH>>>> you just said it...

EDITED FOR STUPIDITY :p

[msbsound]

Macgamefiles has a note on the download site that says Aspyr is aware of the ATI 9000 crash problem and is working on patch. Hopefully they get it out soon since it crashes on me after about 5 minutes of play on my Ti 1gig.

[AkiraK]

I can play Generals on an Athlon 800mhz w/ Geforce 2 MX on medium detail at 800x600 (or low on 1024x768)... why on earth can't it be done on a higher spec mac?

I have a hard time believing this, given that my friend's 2.0 GHz Athlon w/ Geforce 4 Ti4200 and 500 MB of RAM is borderline unplayable (>30 fps) during large-scale battles with the game set to anything but the lowest settings. Generals is a resource hog on any platform, not just the Mac.

Nothing is more tiresome than constantly hearing someone complain about how a game that's playable on their 500MHz PII w/ VooDoo 3 card and 128 MB of RAM (running Windows 95, no less) isn't playable on a top-of-the-line Mac. Share some benchmarks, give us screenshots, or qualify "playable" in some way to make the comparison substantive.

[Powerbook G5]

How do you turn on FSAA on the game? I don't see any option for it in the game options. Does it have to be a certain video card for it to show up in the options screen?

[Rezet]

How do you turn on FSAA on the game? I don't see any option for it in the game options. Does it have to be a certain video card for it to show up in the options screen?

powerbook, its not for you. You need to have retail Ati9800Pro to do that. Overriding gamesettings.

[Falleron]

Its playable on my Dual 1Ghz G4 (with folding running in the background). Not played around with detail settings yet. I have only a ATI 7500 graphics card (32Mb). Thats my weak point.

[titaniumducky]

Are you running the game from the disk image on the desktop, or did you copy it to your HD?

I tried both. It crashed both times. If you notice, the part you quoted mentions that.

[titaniumducky]

Macgamefiles has a note on the download site that says Aspyr is aware of the ATI 9000 crash problem and is working on patch. Hopefully they get it out soon since it crashes on me after about 5 minutes of play on my Ti 1gig.

My Ti has a Mobility 9600 w/ 64MB VRAM; I hope they realize that these are crashing too.

[Maclarny]

If the game is crashing it moreso suggests incompatibility with the hardware rather than the machine simply can't play it. I'd wait until the retail or a new version of the demo comes out to make any lasting decisions on the game. I have it on my Athlon64 and it is a VERY GOOD GAME.

[MrMacMan]

Knock it off. My friend has a 1.2 Ghz pc with 9600 pro card and game runs decently most of the time, but quite laggy at times (on medium details). His brother has athlon 850 with nvidia 5200 and game is unplayable on his computer.

And stop trashing the game just cuz your comps can't handle it.
I just DL and played demo and It didn't crash on me. And with everything on highest it performed very, very well. The only lag that was noticeable when I was trying to scroll with like 100 units on the screen. But I see no reason why this would be a big problem.
Well how about this:

We expect the game to run on what they say it should run on?

Not everyone has a G5 and they shouldn't be making this game for the G5. a 1 GHZ machine or a 1.25 GHZ machine should run this.

We all wish we had G5's but we don't, thats why people are complaining.

Your machine should never have lag! You have a frikken Dual 1.8! Thats second highest machine right now! :eek:

Macgamefiles has a note on the download site that says Aspyr is aware of the ATI 9000 crash problem and is working on patch. Hopefully they get it out soon since it crashes on me after about 5 minutes of play on my Ti 1gig.

Yay for beta testing games! ;)



This game was great, lets just hope we don't need a G5 to start playing it...

[cubist]

It played just fine on my G5 1.6, at 1024x768. I won all the scenarios. They weren't particularly difficult.

However, I'm not happy with the game. It reminds me of Warcraft. I've been playing Rise of Nations and Empires lately (on the PC, alas) and I've gotten used to more intelligent units. In C&CG, the units won't do anything unless you tell them exactly what to do. If you tell them to attack an enemy soldier, and that soldier gets killed, they stop doing anything and just sit there. Another example -- you're building up a battle force and one enemy guy comes over and starts shooting at one of your tanks; the tank just sits there; none of the units do anything.

The graphics are beautiful -- possibly as good or better than Empires' -- but the gameplay is tedious micromanagement.

[Powerbook G5]

The game runs perfectly fine on my PowerBook, so you definitely don't need a G5 for it. I think it's just a poorly coded demo more than anything. I have it set to the highest resolution with the highest detail settings and the gameplay doesn't lag. I think it's a pretty good game, but I agree about the rather unintelligent AI of the units.

[neonart]

I tried both. It crashed both times. If you notice, the part you quoted mentions that.

Yeah, sorry. That was kinda moronic.

I hope an update comes out to fix the issue at hand...

[Rezet]

The game runs perfectly fine on my PowerBook, so you definitely don't need a G5 for it. I think it's just a poorly coded demo more than anything. I have it set to the highest resolution with the highest detail settings and the gameplay doesn't lag. I think it's a pretty good game, but I agree about the rather unintelligent AI of the units.

Maybe you have different definitions of "lag". Cuz many people say 1.25 doesn't play well on high settings at all. Or maybe you got a "special" powerbook. :rolleyes:

[Rezet]

Well how about this:

We expect the game to run on what they say it should run on?

Not everyone has a G5 and they shouldn't be making this game for the G5. a 1 GHZ machine or a 1.25 GHZ machine should run this.

We all wish we had G5's but we don't, thats why people are complaining.

Your machine should never have lag! You have a frikken Dual 1.8! Thats second highest machine right now! :eek:




Dude, have seen a game that doesn't lag when run on minimal requirements computer? It says: MINIMUM 1GHZ G4 required! 1.25Ghz+ recommended. minimum geforce2 32 mbs required. 64Mbs recommended.
And, some people try to run it on like 800mhz ibook and bitch that it doesn't run well giving some bogus info that it runs perfect on their 800 mhz pc.
Diablo, warcraft, unreal, pretty much any game when run on min req computer will be nearly unplayable and certainly not enjoyable.

I'm abit sceprical what Powerbook G5 said that it runs perfect on all highest settings and highest res on his pbook, but i do believe it can be run normally on a powerbook 1.25 atleast on normal settings.

[Powerbook G5]

Maybe you have different definitions of "lag". Cuz many people say 1.25 doesn't play well on high settings at all. Or maybe you got a "special" powerbook. :rolleyes:

When I say it doesn't lag, I mean that it doesn't lag. Just because some of us don't have a G5 doesn't mean we cannot play games without lag. It runs smooth for me without choppiness, if there is another way to describe that other than "runs fine" then let me know. I just don't have a lot of background services running while playing such as Folding and such, perhaps that makes a difference. But really, the game isn't that demanding that a 1.25 GHz G4 with a Radeon 9600 would be unable to play it just fine.

[Rezet]

When I say it doesn't lag, I mean that it doesn't lag. Just because some of us don't have a G5 doesn't mean we cannot play games without lag. It runs smooth for me without choppiness, if there is another way to describe that other than "runs fine" then let me know. I just don't have a lot of background services running while playing such as Folding and such, perhaps that makes a difference. But really, the game isn't that demanding that a 1.25 GHz G4 with a Radeon 9600 would be unable to play it just fine.

Chill dude, i wasnt dissing ur pb. I'm just saying that some people posted in this thread and said generals didnt run well on their 1.25. with all due respect i could care less if you lie or you don't. But I have seen your posts where you claim your pb benchmarks are almost as high as people's with G5s... Thats why i said, maybe your pb is special. ;)

[Powerbook G5]

I have no reason to lie about a game running well on my PowerBook. I don't know what to tell you about my benchmarks, they are generally the same as any other PowerBook benchmarks since they are all the same spec wise, besides maybe a 5400 RPM HD and such. It really just depends on what background services you are running at the time of Xbench testing and what version of OS X you have. Just upgrading from Jaguar to Panther can add over 30 points to your score without a sweat due to better drivers, coding, etc. There is no reason to lie about my system handling the game if it doesn't, but I am sure there are others here who can play Generals on a PowerBook just as well as someone with a G5. The only difference is the level of graphical bells and whistles that you may have available to you due to a better graphics card, but that is to be expected with a $400 9800 card vs. a 9600 mobility chip.

[MrMacMan]

Dude, have seen a game that doesn't lag when run on minimal requirements computer?
That not a sentence.

I am just pissed off how originally during beta they said mimimal requirements were only going to be 800 MHZ... but they bumped it up.

It says: MINIMUM 1GHZ G4 required! 1.25Ghz+ recommended. minimum geforce2 32 mbs required. 64Mbs recommended.
And, some people try to run it on like 800mhz ibook and bitch that it doesn't run well giving some bogus info that it runs perfect on their 800 mhz pc.
It not bogus. If it runs on a slower PC it should run on a faster Mac.
Really a game should be coded and perfected to run on a similar way to the Pc version of the game.

Let me give you an example of pissy porting.

Starcraft BW on a iMac 233 Os 9: 25% of my CPU
Starcraft BW on a iMac 800 Os X: 80+% of my CPU
Starcraft BW on a iMac 800 Ox X Classic Mode: 40+% of my CPU.
You see how on a faster machine it somehow uses more CPU? Whats up with that?

I know -- Crappy Ass Porting.

[Rezet]

That not a sentence.
That's not one either. :) (I forgot to put "You" in mine)


I am just pissed off how originally during beta they said mimimal requirements were only going to be 800 MHZ... but they bumped it up.


It not bogus. If it runs on a slower PC it should run on a faster Mac.
Really a game should be coded and perfected to run on a similar way to the Pc version of the game.

Let me give you an example of pissy porting.

Starcraft BW on a iMac 233 Os 9: 25% of my CPU
Starcraft BW on a iMac 800 Os X: 80+% of my CPU
Starcraft BW on a iMac 800 Ox X Classic Mode: 40+% of my CPU.
You see how on a faster machine it somehow uses more CPU? Whats up with that?

I know -- Crappy Ass Porting.

PC and Mac are not identical. So don't make it sound like it's additional 5 minutes of work to make it run on a lower spec. mac. Maybe they can optimize it, and will, in full version or with the patches later.
That said, I don't think EA/Aspyr are really interested in making a game that is gonna be playable on G5s or top of the line G4s only. I say we wait and see how good retail version of the game is gonna be.

[AppleMatt]

I can't remember who's it was, but a game porters blog once said that it was harder to port games than re-write the application part for OS X, because you basically have to figure out how it works, and then try and iron out the bugs. So basically you're working blind.

AppleMatt

[AkiraK]

Let me give you an example of pissy porting.

Starcraft BW on a iMac 233 Os 9: 25% of my CPU
Starcraft BW on a iMac 800 Os X: 80+% of my CPU
Starcraft BW on a iMac 800 Ox X Classic Mode: 40+% of my CPU.
You see how on a faster machine it somehow uses more CPU? Whats up with that?

I know -- Crappy Ass Porting.

No, flawed logic.

Starcraft BW isn't really a port, but a game that was originally coded for an earlier Mac OS (the original sys requirements stated at least 7.6), then patched to OS X. Given the radical difference in core operating system, anything short of a complete rewrite is going to be inefficient no matter how you go about it.

I'd be curious to see how CPU usage varies from Windows 98 to XP Pro (though, granted, the difference between those two is not as great as the difference between even OS 9 and OS X).

[neonart]

Would it not be sweet if Apple had their own Game House. They could optimize and port all the hottest games! G4,G5, and dual optimized games!

But it would probably not fly with all the other game studios.

I hope Aspyr will do a good job with Splinter Cell... :confused:

[oingoboingo]

Would it not be sweet if Apple had their own Game House. They could optimize and port all the hottest games! G4,G5, and dual optimized games!

But it would probably not fly with all the other game studios.

I hope Aspyr will do a good job with Splinter Cell... :confused:

Hmmm...Splinter Cell can get bogged down a bit even on decent PCs, so don't hold your breath waiting for killer performance on the Mac port.

[AkiraK]

Hmmm...Splinter Cell can get bogged down a bit even on decent PCs, so don't hold your breath waiting for killer performance on the Mac port.

I'll second that. Splinter Cell's lighting effects are awesome, but a **massive** hog. I think the sys requirements are going to leave most behind.

[Counterfit]

Well, I tried the first mission on my PB (same specs as PBG5's, except 4200RPM HD). It was kind of choppy at 1024, with normal-ish settings. HOWEVER I also had iChat, Activity Monitor and ThermographX running, iTunes paused, a transfer using scp, and I had an incoming DCC with Snak (those can eat up quite a few cycles). I'll have to try later with my normal gaming setup (quit EVERYTHING except Thermograph and the game itself, yes that includes the Finder) and try it then.

[oingoboingo]

I'll second that. Splinter Cell's lighting effects are awesome, but a **massive** hog. I think the sys requirements are going to leave most behind.

Of course you could do what I did...buy Splinter Cell for the Xbox :). The combination of the Xbox's low TV resolution and tight tuning of the graphics code for the Xbox's GPU mean that Xbox Splinter Cell gamers are still grinning ear-to-ear from sneaking up and knocking out that last guard, while PC players are still messing around with their graphics detail settings.

I know console gaming isn't everyone's cup of tea, but there's a lot to be said for going out to KMart and dropping AU$250 on an Xbox which can play lots of new release games at good frame rates...it's less than the cost of a mid-range graphics card upgrade for a PC, and plays movie DVDs and stores your MP3s too.

That said, I'm glad my G5 can handle Unreal Tournament 2004 nicely :)

[Rezet]

Well, I tried the first mission on my PB (same specs as PBG5's, except 4200RPM HD). It was kind of choppy at 1024, with normal-ish settings. HOWEVER I also had iChat, Activity Monitor and ThermographX running, iTunes paused, a transfer using scp, and I had an incoming DCC with Snak (those can eat up quite a few cycles). I'll have to try later with my normal gaming setup (quit EVERYTHING except Thermograph and the game itself, yes that includes the Finder) and try it then.

Yeah shut everything down and test everything on highest resolution and details. We'll see how it compares to Powerbook G5's results. :rolleyes: :cool:

[Powerbook G5]

What is it about someone saying a PowerBook can handle the game that bugs you so much? Just because it isn't a dual G5 doesn't mean it automatically isn't able to run newly released game. The only thing I turn off is the cloud and water filters since they make the game look boxy and triangly because I am guessing the Radeon 9600 doesn't support those features as well, but it runs perfectly fine at 1024x768 on high detail. I can't say I know how the whole game will run since I have only played the rather short demo.

[Rezet]

What is it about someone saying a PowerBook can handle the game that bugs you so much? Just because it isn't a dual G5 doesn't mean it automatically isn't able to run newly released game. The only thing I turn off is the cloud and water filters since they make the game look boxy and triangly because I am guessing the Radeon 9600 doesn't support those features as well, but it runs perfectly fine at 1024x768 on high detail. I can't say I know how the whole game will run since I have only played the rather short demo.

It isn't just someone saying it can handle. it's you saying it can handle. And I just don't see your statements on speed of your pb very reliable. And i want a second opinion. What's your problem? If you are right you shouldn't get so edgy about it ;) :rolleyes: :D

[Powerbook G5]

Just because I say my computer can handle the game doesn't make me a liar just because I am not lucky enough to have a G5, either. Others have said it works just fine with their PowerBooks even with other services running in the background. You seem to have an elitist attitude that if someone doesn't have a G5 like you then it isn't fast enough and if they say it is then they must be lying.

[Rezet]

Just because I say my computer can handle the game doesn't make me a liar just because I am not lucky enough to have a G5, either. Others have said it works just fine with their PowerBooks even with other services running in the background. You seem to have an elitist attitude that if someone doesn't have a G5 like you then it isn't fast enough and if they say it is then they must be lying.

Elitest view cuz i have Dual g5? lol. Not at all dude. If you read my review of UT 2004 I admit many times that fps is total **** in some modes and on certain maps with my machine. If I was looking to brag about games perfromance, I wouldn't spend 4K on this comp, but get Intel machine for games. and still have enough dough to get a lower end mac for everyday crap.
But I do feel sceptical about your reviews cuz we had many arguments in these forums and every time when someone said something about poor performance of his computer you jumped in with something like: "My PB runs it just fine". And I especially remember your post when you said you get some mad xbench results that were almost high as my previous Single 1.8 G5. When I went to apple store and ran test there 1.25 pbook scored nothing even remotly close to what you claimed u got with your comp.

And stop blaming others for not really buying into your comp performance claims. I just want to see what someone else gets with same setup. Whats the problem? Or your word is final on 1.25 pb performance?

[Rezet]

"Well.. it's unplayable at the lowest settings on my 1Ghz, fx5200, 768 mb, PB" - alxths

"Not very good graphics, some pretty bad frames (Dual 1 Ghz, 1.25 Gigs of Ram, 9000 Pro), and it crashes a lot. It's not just me, I've talked to another person who crashes repeatedly aswell." -Wes

"Yeah I've tried playing the game 3 times now, all resulting in crashes. I have a 1Ghz 15" TiBook (Radeon Mobility 9000 64MBVRAM and 768SDRAM and Panther 10.3.3. All tries results in crashes during gameplay after the unstoppable in game script during the tutorial (the one of the helos flying low attacking the starting Landing Zone)." -Schmittroth

"after the splash screen I get the black screen of death with the blue letters saying INPUT OUT OF RANGE. Quicksilver Dual 1Ghz - 1.5 Gigs Ram" -varmit

"This game was unimpressive. It runs slowly (on my 1 GHz 15" TiBook), it crashed on me about 5 minutes into the game, and the graphics are pretty bad, in my opinion. I wouldn't mind if it didn't feel so choppy" -Oirectine

"I played it last night and had a good experience! It ran choppy on high detail so i put it on normal and it ran absolutely fine. Dual 1GHz G4, 200gb HD, 1Gig ram, NVIDIA Gefroce4 Ti" -markjones05

"Well, I tried the first mission on my PB (same specs as PBG5's, except 4200RPM HD). It was kind of choppy at 1024, with normal-ish settings. HOWEVER I also had iChat, Activity Monitor and ThermographX running, iTunes paused, a transfer using scp, and I had an incoming DCC with Snak (those can eat up quite a few cycles). I'll have to try later with my normal gaming setup (quit EVERYTHING except Thermograph and the game itself, yes that includes the Finder) and try it then." -counterfit


And only a couple of people with similar comps as yours say it runs decently or ok.
Why should I take your word? Not like this matters, but you shouldnt get mad if people don't really believe you for whatever reason.

[AppleMatt]

Rezet,

It doesn't help when you end your posts with :rolleyes: and tell PowerBook G5 what to do when he responds. (Chill out, not to get mad) etc etc.

AppleMatt

[Mord]

[Mord]

It runs like crap on a 1Ghz PC, so I expect it wont run well on anything less that a G5.

[Rezet]

Rezet,

It doesn't help when you end your posts with :rolleyes: and tell PowerBook G5 what to do when he responds. (Chill out, not to get mad) etc etc.

AppleMatt

Well honestly, :rolleyes: really is a good icon for how I FEEL about his claim. Not like i hate the guy or anything. I don't even know him. And then again I'm not rulling out that I could be wrong. And I'm very well may be. That's why I would like to see what others say who run the game on a similar setup. But powerbook g5 keeps thinking I'm taking a swing at his comp. which is absolutely not true. I think he has a kick ass laptop! And I don't even understand why I should have like he said "elitist attitude" when his pbook doesn't cost much less than my machine (atleast base tower). That's why i said "chill out. i'm not dissing your pb". And no i don't think he is lying either to be honest. But i do have this feeling after reading alot of his posts that he likes to exaggerate alittle when it comes to pb speed. besides, why should he even care if he isn't? If a bunch of people gonna say that the game runs fine on highest settings like he said, it's only gonna make him look better...

[porovaara]

I have the same model powerbook so I may download this to see how it runs, however, Rezet the video card in the alBook is vastly superior to the other machines listed in your collection of quotes.

Background app performance can make a huge difference in games under OSX. For examples fire up Top and see how much CPU is still used by Safari and iTunes when you think they are "idle". I've found most games actually run really well on my alBook (Halo aside) but only if I shutdown most applications.

edit:

Download the demo and gave it a run on my alBook@1.25/768memory almost all background applications turned off. The demo was run at 1024x768 with high detail. The intro movie scenes run pretty damn crappy, somewhere around 10-15fps depending on how much is on screen and there is a good deal of stuttering. The actual game runs much better; since there seems to be no way to measure in game I'd estimate to be around 20fps. However I didn't get into any heavy scenes. Looking at cpu usage while the game was running it appears to be heavily CPU bound so I'd suspect the frame rate to drop a lot when there was much activity.

[Rezet]

I have the same model powerbook so I may download this to see how it runs, however, Rezet the video card in the alBook is vastly superior to the other machines listed in your collection of quotes.

Background app performance can make a huge difference in games under OSX. For examples fire up Top and see how much CPU is still used by Safari and iTunes when you think they are "idle". I've found most games actually run really well on my alBook (Halo aside) but only if I shutdown most applications.

edit:

Download the demo and gave it a run on my alBook@1.25/768memory almost all background applications turned off. The demo was run at 1024x768 with high detail. The intro movie scenes run pretty damn crappy, somewhere around 10-15fps depending on how much is on screen and there is a good deal of stuttering. The actual game runs much better; since there seems to be no way to measure in game I'd estimate to be around 20fps. However I didn't get into any heavy scenes. Looking at cpu usage while the game was running it appears to be heavily CPU bound so I'd suspect the frame rate to drop a lot when there was much activity.


Thanks man.

as far as video cards... Well Ti4 is better than mobility 9600 man. and a guy with DUAL 1ghz g4 tower says it doesnt run very well... :)
Well like pb g5 said try to turn off water effect off, see if it speeds it up.
On my comp it really makes no difference, so i can't say.

[Arkillion]

It ran okay on my machine, but quite frankly it just wasn't worth my time, same looking units I have seen from them for years. Just not very fun gameplay. It moves incredible slow by default im sure you can turn it up but its not even worth the time. :rolleyes:

[markjones05]

Thanks man.

as far as video cards... Well Ti4 is better than mobility 9600 man. and a guy with DUAL 1ghz g4 tower says it doesnt run very well... :)
Well like pb g5 said try to turn off water effect off, see if it speeds it up.
On my comp it really makes no difference, so i can't say.

I cant believe that someone with a DUAL 1ghz G4 actually complained about performance. It runs very well on mine. Granted not ALL the setting can be turned on high. But common. This "guy" must be fresh from PC land.

[yellow]

It's kinda sorry to see so many people judging the game without actually playing the final. There could be extenuating circumstances as to why the demo is so poor. The demo could have been thrown at the developers at the last minute. They could have forgotten to do it and were up against a serious deadline. Maybe they did a poor job because they just didn't care too much.. Yes I realize that a demo is intended to give people a taste of the game and hopefully pique their interest into buying it. Shame on Aspyr and i5 for doing a bad job with the demo, possibly hurting their sale of the final product. But try and be a bit more optimistic, people. We're Mac users, not the darkly depressed bleating sheep of the WinTel world..

Personally I think this game is kinda fun. Scouts & Commanches. Yeah.

I look forward to playing it again at a later date.

"AK47s for eveyone!"

[Rezet]

"AK47s for eveyone!"


Heh, ak47 is old. I dunno why people so nuts about 47 when AK74 is significatly better. And even 74 will soon be replaced in russia :)

[yellow]

Heh, ak47 is old. I dunno why people so nuts about 47 when AK74 is significatly better. And even 74 will soon be replaced in russia :) It's a quote from the game. Arm the riotous mob!

[Rezet]

It's a quote from the game. Arm the riotous mob!

ahh... ignorant me.. :)

[Powerbook G5]

Well honestly, :rolleyes: really is a good icon for how I FEEL about his claim. Not like i hate the guy or anything. I don't even know him. And then again I'm not rulling out that I could be wrong. And I'm very well may be. That's why I would like to see what others say who run the game on a similar setup. But powerbook g5 keeps thinking I'm taking a swing at his comp. which is absolutely not true. I think he has a kick ass laptop! And I don't even understand why I should have like he said "elitist attitude" when his pbook doesn't cost much less than my machine (atleast base tower). That's why i said "chill out. i'm not dissing your pb". And no i don't think he is lying either to be honest. But i do have this feeling after reading alot of his posts that he likes to exaggerate alittle when it comes to pb speed. besides, why should he even care if he isn't? If a bunch of people gonna say that the game runs fine on highest settings like he said, it's only gonna make him look better...

It's just annoying being hounded by you all the time being called a liar just because you want to insist everything I say is a lie. Have you seen the game running on my PowerBook? No you haven't. You complain about my Xbench scores being high, but yet haven't you seen other PowerBooks just like mine consistently posting the same range of scores? Are we all lying, then? If I remember correctly, many G5s posted overly low scores at first because Xbench couldn't accurately test them, so I don't see how you are complaining that I "claim" that my PowerBook is as fast as a G5 when I don't. All I said was that Generals ran fine on my PowerBook and you decide to go defensive as if I made a slam on your mother or something. There is absolutely no point in lying about my computer running Generals without any lag during gameplay. It's not like it'd magically run smoothly if I say so. I simply said on a computer with my specs it seems to run just fine so that others may be able to gauge how well their systems might run it if they aren't able to download it on a broadband connection in a matter of minutes. If you have a problem with me, then fine, but I don't see why you must constantly dog me and claim repeatedly that I am lying and such when I am just trying to give my input on how well the game plays and how much I enjoyed it. This is supposed to be a community discussion where we feel free to talk about the topic on hand without a bunch of annoyingly immature accusations being thrown around without any reason that someone is lying.

[Rezet]

It's just annoying being hounded by you all the time being called a liar just because you want to insist everything I say is a lie. Have you seen the game running on my PowerBook? No you haven't. You complain about my Xbench scores being high, but yet haven't you seen other PowerBooks just like mine consistently posting the same range of scores? Are we all lying, then? If I remember correctly, many G5s posted overly low scores at first because Xbench couldn't accurately test them, so I don't see how you are complaining that I "claim" that my PowerBook is as fast as a G5 when I don't. All I said was that Generals ran fine on my PowerBook and you decide to go defensive as if I made a slam on your mother or something. There is absolutely no point in lying about my computer running Generals without any lag during gameplay. It's not like it'd magically run smoothly if I say so. I simply said on a computer with my specs it seems to run just fine so that others may be able to gauge how well their systems might run it if they aren't able to download it on a broadband connection in a matter of minutes. If you have a problem with me, then fine, but I don't see why you must constantly dog me and claim repeatedly that I am lying and such when I am just trying to give my input on how well the game plays and how much I enjoyed it. This is supposed to be a community discussion where we feel free to talk about the topic on hand without a bunch of annoyingly immature accusations being thrown around without any reason that someone is lying.

I think I collected enough people's opinons to be sceptical about your claims on this topic. And like i said earlier, don't get pissed cuz someone doesn't buy your stores all the time. Trust is is earned. And if someone finds your statements believebale, flag in their hands, - I don't care. But say what you want, after seeing many of your posts where somehow you manage to compare your PB to something, it seems that there is this aura around you and your pb which is supposed make everyone believe your pb can handle anything. Maybe I'm wrong, and you simply don't post in other threads, but this is what i saw.
Sorry bro, but when people with DUAL G4 with Ti4 say game handles like crap, I want to be sceptical about your statements that it runs perfect on your comp with evertying set to highest.
I will be in apple store this week and I will try to check out the performance of the game there on 1.25 pb myself. Unless ofcourse they kick me out.

P.S I don't think I called you a liar officially. I'm just sceptical about your claims at most. And I do think you take it too seriously. I'm not dissing you nor your computer. And I don't see what the problem is replying to someone statement saying: "I'm not sure i believe you" and ask people with similar setup to try to test it also. Not that I want to prove your wrong or dis your pb, I just want to have an overall opinon how the game performs. Trust me, if you were sceptical about my statement, I'd have no problem with it. Sadly neither of us can prove our points, we can only make conlusions on what others say. Cuz if I test game at apple store and it runs like crap, you will be first to say something like: "Well maybe they have programs runnig, or they are missing some patch or whatever" or "why should i believe you? you also have a bias here and can lie as well". And we are back at square one. So relax, enjoy life, eat good. Lets just chill.

[BornAgainMac]

I had the Windows version over a year ago but couldn't play it because it couldn't run at the minimum specs on my 1 Ghz PC. It was the last PC game I bought. It would freeze up half way thru and it was very slow and unplayable. The speed on my G5 makes it as enjoyable as the original C&C game on the PC. Never had the Mac version of C&C. By the way, I have 1 GB of ram and a ATI 9600 video card with 2Ghz G5 CPUs. At the lowest settings, the game is very fluid. Higher resolutions seems a little jerky so I tend to play at the lowest settings. It doesn't bother me but I can see it being an issue for others.

I am going to my nearby Apple store to see if they have Generals in stock. I hope the Generals addon comes out for the Mac soon. Unreal 2003/2004 are also very good games for the Mac.

[yellow]

C&C:G ran acceptably at lowest settings on an 867 Qwoosh w/ nVidia Ti.
C&C:G ran so-so at med settings on an 867 Qwoosh w/ nVidia Ti.
C&C:G ran poorly at highest settings on an 867 Qwoosh w/ nVidia Ti.

C&C:G ran very well at lowest settings on a DP 1.25 MDD w/ ATI 8500.
C&C:G ran well at medium settings on a DP 1.25 MDD w/ ATI 8500.
C&C:G ran acceptably at highest settings a DP 1.25 MDD w/ ATI 8500.

C&C:G ran simply spectacularly at all settings on a DP 1.4 Qwoosh w/ nVidia Ti.

C&C:G ran acceptably at medium settings on a 1.25 PB. For a PB.

The moral:

I found the 867 Qwoosh to be annoyingly slow when there was many units on the screen at once with the setting on anything but the lowest. I think I would be quite disappointed with the game if my specs were lower then an 867. I think Aspyr's system requirements for this game are pretty darned close to the mark.

[aldo]

Ok, RE: Minimum specifcation issue. I call playable 25fps with a good amount of units on the screen (50?).

If you look at the minimum spec. for the PC game:

Minimum Requirements: Win 98/2000/ME/XP, PIII 800 Mhz, 128mb Ram, 1.8GB HDD, 32mb Graphics Card

You will see that this is a sloppy port because the mac version requries:

# Mac OS X 10.2.6 or later
# PowerPC G4/G5, 1GHz or faster
# 256MB RAM
# 1.6GB free disk space
# 3D Graphics Acceleration required (ATI Radeon 7500/nVidia GeForce 2 or better, 32MB of VRAM)

I know plenty of people who play generals just fine on 800mhz athlons with geforce2mx's.

[yellow]

IMO, comparing specific specs for software of WinTel to Mac is well...
Comparing oranges to apples.

And "minimum requirements" is speculative. Are they the minimum specs for the game to run at all? Are they the minimum specs for decent performance?

[AppleMatt]

Heh, ak47 is old. I dunno why people so nuts about 47 when AK74 is significatly better. And even 74 will soon be replaced in russia :)

I think it was because it came so freely available on the black market so quickly, and in massive quantities.

So they're basically saying, if you're a terrorist, you use them.
You see them on tele all the time, usually in the hands of someone wanting to free [misunderstood leader]/[misunderstood country].

AppleMatt

[benpatient]

for what it's worth...

this is the first modern 3d game that didn't hard crash my G5 after 5 minutes or less. In fact, it survived long enough for me to get the settings optimized (disappointed by the results there) and to get bored with the demo (30 minutes).

My machine is a dual 1.8 with the stupid 5200, a RAID 0 stripe and 2.5 GB of RAM.

my default screen resolution is 1600x1200. The game was jerky at this setting even on "low" details and color.

I went to 1024x768 and 32bit color and accepted the blurriness that LCDs always give out-of-native. Not very happy about that right off the bat, but I am used to it because this machine's graphics card is crap compared to mid-low end PC cards today.

I found that at 1024, i had to disable "tree sway," "water effects" and "3d shadows" to get a decent frame rate if there was any actual fighting going on.

I've played this on my 1.8ghz athlon a while back at 1024/32bit/highest and it ran much better, so i guess this is just another game that is optimized to run terribly on a Mac.

what else is new.

I might as well be honest and say that the only time i've ever had fun on a Mac game, really, was playing this old motorcycle racing game on system 7. Since then it has been one disappointment after another.

[AkiraK]

If you look at the minimum spec. for the PC game:

Minimum Requirements: Win 98/2000/ME/XP, PIII 800 Mhz, 128mb Ram, 1.8GB HDD, 32mb Graphics Card

I have problems with any game that requires Win XP with less than 256 mb RAM...that alone will grind your computer to a screeching halt. Playing the game on top of that is just begging for trouble.


You will see that this is a sloppy port because the mac version requries:

# Mac OS X 10.2.6 or later
# PowerPC G4/G5, 1GHz or faster
# 256MB RAM
# 1.6GB free disk space
# 3D Graphics Acceleration required (ATI Radeon 7500/nVidia GeForce 2 or better, 32MB of VRAM)

The RAM requirement I wouldn't call higher...just more realistic, especially given OS X's minimum requirements just for the OS. The same could be argued for the processor differential, given that an 800 mHz PIII will barely run Office XP decently.

At least the Mac version requires less disk space... ;)


I know plenty of people who play generals just fine on 800mhz athlons with geforce2mx's.

I find the claim suspicious at best, given that I know plenty of people for whom it runs like crap on similar systems, especially late in the missions when all hell is breaking loose.

As for the expansion pack, if you like the game, the expansion pack is more of the same, with just enough tweaks to make the game fresh without sacrificing time spent on the initial learning curve.

[aldo]

Ok, yes it will need more RAM (I have it running fine on a 800mhz/38mb/geforce2mx 32mb box), but these stories of powerbooks not being able to play it are very worrying.

Apple has slipped up here because they should of been pushing the gaming industry to Mac quicker. A lot of the consumers need games, and if they ain't any, the consumer machines won't sell (or people will switch back to PC soon after that have realized that games is all they have their PCs for anyways).

IMO, Apple should have a inhouse game development team. They could produce mac-only games. It might loose money, but who cares when it will create some intrest in Mac gaming. Otherwise, the whole industry is going to switch to DirectX (apart from cAmeron) and then Mac gaming will be crappy, late ports over and over.

[About2SwitchOvr]

I had the Windows version over a year ago but couldn't play it because it couldn't run at the minimum specs on my 1 Ghz PC. It was the last PC game I bought. It would freeze up half way thru and it was very slow and unplayable. The speed on my G5 makes it as enjoyable as the original C&C game on the PC. Never had the Mac version of C&C. By the way, I have 1 GB of ram and a ATI 9600 video card with 2Ghz G5 CPUs. At the lowest settings, the game is very fluid. Higher resolutions seems a little jerky so I tend to play at the lowest settings. It doesn't bother me but I can see it being an issue for others.

I am going to my nearby Apple store to see if they have Generals in stock. I hope the Generals addon comes out for the Mac soon. Unreal 2003/2004 are also very good games for the Mac.

This Forum is great... If others don't know, I just got the iMac 20" 2 weeks ago (1.25, 80, 768DDR). I got wind of CC:G being available in Mac just yesterday, and called EVERYWHERE (CC, BB, Target, CompUSA) and they all said they didn't have it.. So there happened to be a COMPUSA on the way home, and stopped in. BAM! Right in some little corner in their Mac section, a whole slew of them. (The Apple store didn't even have them in stock!)
I didn't have a chance to install it yet, but brought the manual to work with me :-). I hope this game runs fine on my machine.. I read through all of the posts, and didn't see anyone with the iMac 20 posting... I'll install it tonight and give it a whirl and let you guys know...
I wonder if the ATI problem persists on my iMac (NVidia...) It shouldn't.. correct?

P.S. thanks for everyone posting.. This forum has really made my transition from PC to Mac VERY easy and FUN....
:p

[Benjamin]

Well i have enjoyed this demo it is really to bad that this is only the second command and conquer for mac and not #whatever that the pc has... i really had to break down at my friends to play those.. oh well.. but glad to see this coming out soon, to bad once again no pc and mac multi-play unless that has changed.

[yellow]

to bad once again no pc and mac multi-play unless that has changed. Sadly it hasn't. It's Mac only MP via GameRanger.

[Powerbook G5]

This Forum is great... If others don't know, I just got the iMac 20" 2 weeks ago (1.25, 80, 768DDR). I got wind of CC:G being available in Mac just yesterday, and called EVERYWHERE (CC, BB, Target, CompUSA) and they all said they didn't have it.. So there happened to be a COMPUSA on the way home, and stopped in. BAM! Right in some little corner in their Mac section, a whole slew of them. (The Apple store didn't even have them in stock!)
I didn't have a chance to install it yet, but brought the manual to work with me :-). I hope this game runs fine on my machine.. I read through all of the posts, and didn't see anyone with the iMac 20 posting... I'll install it tonight and give it a whirl and let you guys know...
I wonder if the ATI problem persists on my iMac (NVidia...) It shouldn't.. correct?

P.S. thanks for everyone posting.. This forum has really made my transition from PC to Mac VERY easy and FUN....
:p

Your iMac should be able to run the game without any major problems. Despite some thinking I am lying when I say it, my 1.25 GHz PowerBook runs it fine on high detail and you have more RAM than I do. I don't know how different the nVidia gpu in your iMac is from the ATi in the PowerBook in terms of performance, but if anything, you could run it fine on medium detail on high resolution or high detail on a lower resolution without any problems. Besides, I am willing to bet that the full game may be more polished than the demo is, anyway.

[About2SwitchOvr]

Your iMac should be able to run the game without any major problems. Despite some thinking I am lying when I say it, my 1.25 GHz PowerBook runs it fine on high detail and you have more RAM than I do. I don't know how different the nVidia gpu in your iMac is from the ATi in the PowerBook in terms of performance, but if anything, you could run it fine on medium detail on high resolution or high detail on a lower resolution without any problems. Besides, I am willing to bet that the full game may be more polished than the demo is, anyway.


Thanks for the vote of confidence!
I'm going to install this tonight, and will let you guys know. I doubt I'll have the same problem as others (having an NVIDIA than a ATI). I bet it'll do fine.. we'll just have to see! :-)
(thanks for replying!)
:D

[maelstromr]

I can't believe no one has posted anything...there's a patch for the demo! Problems fixed? I'm downloading the game and patch now...

[MrMacMan]

Sadly it hasn't. It's Mac only MP via GameRanger.

*smashes head against wall over and over*

If -- We -- Want -- Real -- Mutiplayer games:
We -- Need -- Windows -- Compatibility.

[yellow]

*smashes head against wall over and over*

If -- We -- Want -- Real -- Mutiplayer games:
We -- Need -- Windows -- Compatibility.

Sometimes this simply isn't possible without completely recoding some basic componants of the game. And something this is not a task that conversion houses are willing to spend the money and time to undertake.

[Mord]

well it runs on my cube with all the details down 450MHz radeon 9000 7200rpm HD

the units move slowly is that normal

(is this game based on the age of mythology engine sure as hell looks like it)

[Mord]

IFor examples fire up Top and see how much CPU is still used by Safari and iTunes when you think they are "idle".


together they use .9% of my cpu power

the powerbooks cpu underclocks itself when not in use to save power so the percentage used on mundane things like itunes safari makes a big impact on Top

and yes quiting all apps dose help game proformance

[msbsound]

Since the patch, the demo seems to be running pretty well on my powerbook. It is the 1gig with the ati 9000. I was at medium settings with 800X600 res and I haven't tried tweaking anything. No noticable hiccups or jumps, but I found the game a bit tedious for the same reason others spoke of: poor AI. I got frustrated having to tell each unit to move on and kill the next guy...uggghhh. If I were being shot at, and I were in a tank, I think I may just use that big cannon and do something about it. :cool:

[yellow]

I got frustrated having to tell each unit to move on and kill the next guy...uggghhh. If I were being shot at, and I were in a tank, I think I may just use that big cannon and do something about it. :cool: Some of this is due to the ranges at which unit's weapons operate. I agree that it's a bit silly that a tank or an infantry unit will just sit there and get pounded by an RPG unit because it's range is greater. One way to combat this is to use the 'defend area' selection. Any enemy that comes within the periphery shown when you make the selection and choose the area will get attacked.

[cubist]

Sometimes this simply isn't possible without completely recoding some basic componants of the game. And something this is not a task that conversion houses are willing to spend the money and time to undertake.

Usually it's just endian issues. I'd blame the ORIGINAL programmers for not putting network messages into network endian from the start. As a programmer, I call that lazy, careless work.

[yellow]

Usually it's just endian issues. I'd blame the ORIGINAL programmers for not putting network messages into network endian from the start. As a programmer, I call that lazy, careless work. I completely agree. I completely failed to mention that in my post. Most of the blame should go to the original (windows) developers for being lazy. Now let me ask you something. Is it because they created a networking that was completely and utterly Windows proprietary?

[About2SwitchOvr]

Thanks for the vote of confidence!
I'm going to install this tonight, and will let you guys know. I doubt I'll have the same problem as others (having an NVIDIA than a ATI). I bet it'll do fine.. we'll just have to see! :-)
(thanks for replying!)
:D


Just installed the full version game last night (picked up from CompUSA)
I ran it under the highest res. (1024x768) at medium details. The video wasn't as fast or realtime as I had hoped it would be. But no sweat.
Also, during the intro movie, it was a BIT choppy (not complaining).. just wanted to give some input. I don't believe I need the ATi patch, as the iMac uses the nVidia... but all is well. Just the only complaint is.. it runs a bit slow.. I am worried to see how it will run when I have more characters on the screen at the same time... :rolleyes:

[benpatient]

Usually it's just endian issues. I'd blame the ORIGINAL programmers for not putting network messages into network endian from the start. As a programmer, I call that lazy, careless work.

you guys sure are quick to criticize the people who made the game, huh? isn't it possible that *gasp* the conversion house sucks at quality conversions? i mean, if you look at all of their conversions over the years, they aren't exactly an excercise in perfection...yet the original games work just fine on PCs...

[yellow]

yet the original games work just fine on PCs...Sure.. especially since I wrote the networking to only work on a WinTel. Screw standards!

[benpatient]

oh pardon them...90% of boxes isn't a standard at aaaaaaaaaall.

:)

[maelstromr]

oh pardon them...90% of boxes isn't a standard at aaaaaaaaaall.

:)


Well, it's not quite 90% actually...don't forget linux et al ;)

[yellow]

oh pardon them...90% of boxes isn't a standard at aaaaaaaaaall. I never said Windows wasn't following the standard.

What I was alluding to was the original programmers for some games create their own "networking" standards to connect games for multiplayer. For example, if I wrote a game that used Appletalk for multiplayer. Appletalk is a non-standards-compliant network protocol. The hooks for all this networking are deep in my code. They are Apple specific. It would be mind-bogglingly difficult for the people porting the game to Windows to get it to work. Solution? Windows-only-MP.

This isn't something that Aspyr does to punish Mac gamers. They are totally committed to PC/Mac multiplay, just sometimes money and time are contraints they cannot overcome. It would be nothing but a boon for them to be able to do that with every MP game that comes across their laps. I expect their profit margin to be fairly narrow considering the volumes of Macs on the planet, of which a percentage plays games. Can they afford to take a game and spend 6 months rewritting what they need so you can send your GLA fighters out against your enemy on his WinTelXP? No.

[MrMacMan]

Sometimes this simply isn't possible without completely recoding some basic componants of the game. And something this is not a task that conversion houses are willing to spend the money and time to undertake.
No you see, this has been a problem for several windows ports for games they have made for mac.

Generals is not the first time this problem has come to haunt mac users.


Guess what they are going to say about Battlefield 1942 'uhh... sorry we have to use gameranger' well to bad, get compatiablity. Get some new code.

Work your ass off.

yellow -- This isn't the first game of its kind to have non-compliant online networking.


I still say Gameranger is the quick fix.

[yellow]

yellow -- This isn't the first game of its kind to have non-compliant online networking. Yes I know.. I didn't think I said or implied anywhere that it was the first? :confused:

[lewdvig]

I bough CC: Generals the day it came out on the PC and it ran poorly on my old PC laptop: P4M 1.6 RADEON 7500 32mb.

I tried the demo on my G4 867 with GF4MX and it seemed to run about the same - which is quite good given the slower CPU.

I played this game at the default settings (the software picks resolution and detail).

[Powerbook G5]

I saw it in the store the other day and almost bought it, but I have too many other expenses I need to pay for first with moving this Thursday. Does anyone know if the retail version is patched for the ATi cards or was that only the demo version that had the bug?

[yoda13]

I saw it in the store the other day and almost bought it, but I have too many other expenses I need to pay for first with moving this Thursday. Does anyone know if the retail version is patched for the ATi cards or was that only the demo version that had the bug?

I have it installed on my PowerMac with the Radeon 9000 and have played through a couple of campaigns and have had no problems, so I guess it is OK. Either that, or I am just lucky :D

[Brundlefly]

seems to be fine on my 1 gig powerbook, at 1024, a few options off and textures full. Sometimes the planes or helicopters lag me a little.

I wish there was a play in windowed mode though, dont like the full screen on the wide screen stretch.

[yellow]

Isn't Windowed a selection if you hold down shift when double-clicking to start up the game?

[nspeds]

Should be getting the game tomorrow so I'll post performance results for the PB17inch with 512 ram.

Is there a patch for the full version? If so, what performance issues does it fix?

[yoda13]

OK, so earlier, I posted that it ran fine on my PowerMac with the Radeon 9000. Still does, but I loaded it up on my Tibook with mobility version of same card, crashes immediately after loading a game. There is a patch out that fixes this problem for Radeon cards. Haven't had to load it on my PowerMac, but the TiBook requires it. It also seems to help the choppiness of the movies and other similar problems. It seems slightly snappier on my TiBook versus the PowerMac, which I would not have expected, even with the faster processor, since my xBench score is so much higher on the PowerMac. Must be really processor intensive. But the patch works well and the game runs fairly well on medium settings at 1024x768 on my TiBook. Haven't had the guts to turn the settings all the way up, and probably won't. Anyway, my two cents. Again.

[thegeek187]

Got the game today.. Works great on my 1ghz imac.

One problem though


It will not save

it goes through the save process then it says error cannot save or soemthing to that effect in the upper left corner


anyone else having this problem

[yellow]

Make sure your permissions are sorted out.
All the saved games land in /foo/Command & Conquer Generals/User Data/Save/.

[thegeek187]

Make sure your permissions are sorted out.
All the saved games land in /foo/Command & Conquer Generals/User Data/Save/.

what do you mean im lost....

[yellow]

what do you mean im lost.... Make sure you are the owner for the game's directory and that you have read/write. Or at least that it is part of your group, which has read and write. Make sure these permissions track recursively through the game's directory hierarchy.

You can do this through Get Info or (Assuming you are an admin user...):
sudo chown -R root:admin "/Applications/Command & Conquer General"
sudo chmod -R ug+wr "/Applications/Command & Conquer General"

[unsung]

I'm not sure if a game review would be a good addition here or to a new thread but I'll make it here first.

I'm using a Powerbook 17" 512 RAM, 1.33 G4

This is for single player skirmish only, I like to go against the computer with it having 4 players against me.

A few things I liked...

Graphics are better than previous games and the overall feel is improved. I liked the idea of raising points to determine General level. Some of the elite weapons are pretty cool.

Things I do not like...

No ability to create a map, or have one randomly created by inputing specific parameters. No navy or water. No spies, no Tanya-type figures. The AI hardly makes any troops. The beginning sequence shows Carpet Bombing and Tomahawk missles, neither are in the mode. The maps you can use are small and boring. The game has crashed twice on me, both times when I was using a bomb truck for the GLA. Limited to three sides instead of multiple countries like previous versions.

There are more but I was trying to keep it brief.

Since the expansion Zero Hour has been out for a while on PC I'm a little surprised that version was not released right off the bat. I wonder how long it will be for an expansion if there will even be one.

[yellow]

The beginning sequence shows Carpet Bombing and Tomahawk missles, neither are in the mode. Carpet bombing is only available in one China mission. Tomahawks (a.k.a. "long range cruise missile") are available in skirmish if you are the USA. You have to build a strategy center to make them available.

[About2SwitchOvr]

Isn't Windowed a selection if you hold down shift when double-clicking to start up the game?

I tried the SHIFT while starting up CC:Generals, and it didn't open up windowed... you think I may be doing something wrong? I'D LOVE to play CC:G windowed....

[yellow]

I tried the SHIFT while starting up CC:Generals, and it didn't open up windowed... you think I may be doing something wrong? I'D LOVE to play CC:G windowed.... In the Finder, hold down shift, double-click on the game, keep holding down shift, a pop-up window should pop-up that has a "Play Full Screen" checkbox. Uncheck that.

[About2SwitchOvr]

In the Finder, hold down shift, double-click on the game, keep holding down shift, a pop-up window should pop-up that has a "Play Full Screen" checkbox. Uncheck that.

I'm at work.. so I will check this out once I get home...
Just out of curiosity, it SHOULD play a bit smoother.. no?
I like this game so far.. I'm no game fanatic, by far.... I just like simple games.. smooth transitions.. and I've always loved CC..
I also loved playing Civilization (original).. WAAAY back in the days..
and then Warcraft came along as well :-)
(sorry for blabbing..)
Thanks all, for your input.. it's GREATLY appreciated... :)

[yellow]

I don't think playing it in Windowed mode is smoother. It basically just lets you get back to the Finder, etc, when you're playing the game. It's rather annoying too because it difficult to use mouse scrolling on the game screen when you can easily scroll off the edges of the game. Check it out for yourself. If you don't like it, doing the same thing and rechecking the checkbox will put it back to full screen.

[About2SwitchOvr]

I don't think playing it in Windowed mode is smoother. It basically just lets you get back to the Finder, etc, when you're playing the game. It's rather annoying too because it difficult to use mouse scrolling on the game screen when you can easily scroll off the edges of the game. Check it out for yourself. If you don't like it, doing the same thing and rechecking the checkbox will put it back to full screen.

I got the windowed version to work (thanks for the instructions).. But I can't even scroll left or right.. weird... I think I'm going to revert to the fullscreen...
THANKS GUYS

[BornAgainMac]

I purchased C&C:G over the weekend and I am really hooked on this game. It's very smooth on my G5. I just have an ordinary 17 inch CRT and hope to upgrade to a 23 inch flat panel display this summer when / if the new ones come out.

The terrorists in the game really fight dirty just like real life. I show no mercy with my army. I have an Xbox collecting dust because I have a good collection of really good Mac games. (Unreal 2004, Generals, SimCity, Aliens vs Predator, X Plane, Age of Empires II, Jedi 2). The sound sticks on my G5 really make the sound come alive. Who cares if the Mac doesn't have hundreds of games, I like what is available today.

[mr_mac]

C&C:G is the only game i've seen up to now that does not offer 1280x1024 resolution and it's also the only game that lags on my machine at 800x600 everything maxed out. I usually run UT2004 and Neverwinter at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200.

And i dont have a Mac Plus!

Weird. Really bad optimisation...

Mrmac

[robert@nilsson.]

In order to set a higher screen resolution in C&C Generals, just edit the Options.ini file in the 'User Data' directory and change the line that says 'Resolution' to whatever you want. I use 1280x800 (entered as '1200 800') on my powerbook.

Rob.

[aclose72]

hi

i just found this thread and am excited that this game is available for the mac. i've played red alert and bought my brother generals for his b-day. i just purchased a new powerbook (step up from my cube ;) and was hoping that i could find this game.

anyone mind telling me where i can purchase it? i didn't see it listed on the 'official' website as a mac game. i'm too new to the mac to know where the mac gaming sites are.

thx
ac

[yellow]

One place to buy it:
http://www.aspyr.com/games.php/mac/ccg/

[aclose72]

One place to buy it:
http://www.aspyr.com/games.php/mac/ccg/

yellow,

thanks for the link.
i noticed earlier in the thread someone mentioned that there isn't online pc/mac play, only mac/mac. is this the case with locally networked machines as well? just curious because my brother is still on the dark side...

[PCgirl]

I'm pulling out my hair here. I've just connected the IBM T56A monitor on my MAC and the display is horrible! I can't get it bigger than 1024 x 768, 85 Hz

Is there a patch for this somewhere? My specs is: Power MAC G4 Mac OS X
CPU: PowerPC G4
CPU speed: 733Mhz
GeForce 2 MX

Unfortunately I'm actually a PC girl, but has to work on a MAC at work

[Chrispy]

Unfortunately I'm actually a PC girl, but has to work on a MAC at work

If only we could trade work machines we could both be happy. I'm a Mac guy and I have to work on a PC at work ;)

[neonart]

I'm pulling out my hair here. I've just connected the IBM T56A monitor on my MAC and the display is horrible! I can't get it bigger than 1024 x 768, 85 Hz

Is there a patch for this somewhere? My specs is: Power MAC G4 Mac OS X
CPU: PowerPC G4
CPU speed: 733Mhz
GeForce 2 MX

Unfortunately I'm actually a PC girl, but has to work on a MAC at work

Sorry to tell you this, but thats the maximum resolution for that monitor. The evil Mac is not your problem.

Here is IBM's specs:
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-4F9SC7